Saved by Faith through Grace.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Surely even you can see that if you have no evidence to back something up, you cannot claim it to be true, even if you believe it to be so.

And what are you using to evaluate the evidence Floo?

If you're going down the empirical route, what empirical evidence do you have that your husband loves you? Is there an SI unit for love, faithfulness in marriage, etc?

If you go down bluehillside's route that it must be testable, what approach do you have that distinguishes your conclusions from just guessing?

[floo]

And what are you using to evaluate the evidence Floo?

If you're going down the empirical route, what empirical evidence do you have that your husband loves you? Is there an SI unit for love, faithfulness in marriage, etc?

If you go down bluehillside's route that it must be testable, what approach do you have that distinguishes your conclusions from just guessing?

No evidence to support your position has been presented.

My husband is a flesh and blood person. God if it exists, is hiding away somewhere so no one can actually ascertain what it is thinking

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

My husband is a flesh and blood person. God if it exists, is hiding away somewhere so no one can actually ascertain what it is thinking

But the question wasn't Does your husband exist?, it was

If you're going down the empirical route, what empirical evidence do you have that your husband loves you? Is there an SI unit for love, faithfulness in marriage, etc?

If you go down bluehillside's route that it must be testable, what approach do you have that distinguishes your conclusions from just guessing?

[floo]

But the question wasn't Does your husband exist?, it was

As usual you are not comparing like with like, but are unable to work that out, which why posters find your contributions irritating

[Robbie]

Some posters might. I don't find Sword of the spirit's posts irritating.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

And what are you using to evaluate the evidence Floo?

If you're going down the empirical route, what empirical evidence do you have that your husband loves you? Is there an SI unit for love, faithfulness in marriage, etc?

If you go down bluehillside's route that it must be testable, what approach do you have that distinguishes your conclusions from just guessing?

It's simple enough. There are various ways to investigate the claim - you can look at his actions, you can take samples of hormonal changes when he thinks of her, you can take MRI scans to see whether relevant parts of the brain "light up" when she enters the room etc.

Now then, about this god of yours...

[Anchorman]

If Grace alone saved everyone would naturally be saved automatically.
So you have to faith to believe in that Grace to be saved.
So you are saved by faith through Grace.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whomsoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.

You have to have faith and believe otherwise you are not saved.

Saved by Grace - God made man for me giving Himself for me - first - then faith to accept it.
As per Scripture - and normal Christian teaching.

http://biblehub.com/ephesians/2-8.htm

[floo]

Some posters might. I don't find Sword of the spirit's posts irritating.

Each to their own,  I think he is..........., no mustn't say it, that would be too impolite!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinson,

Some posters might. I don't find Sword of the spirit's posts irritating.

Really? He's a one-trick pony with a very bad trick ("world view"). Do you not find his endless repetition of it rather than engaging with the falsification of it to be irritating?

Oh well - each to her own I suppose.

[Robbie]

He is far from being the only poster whosays same thing over and over.

[floo]

Getting back to the subject of being 'saved', I am still not exactly sure what we are being 'saved' from?

[Nearly Sane]

But the question wasn't Does your husband exist?, it was

Your question displayed a basic confusion between naturalistic methodology as a whole, and science as a subset. You need to rephrase it when ypu have got over your confusion.

[SusanDoris]

He is far from being the only poster whosays same thing over and over.

No, but his posts have an air of smugness in my opinion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinson,

He is far from being the only poster whosays same thing over and over.

I think that's called damning with faint praise.

And besides, there's nothing wrong with explaining why 2+2≠5 over and again when someone keeps posting 2+2=5. It's for the latter do deal with the falsification - something Sword refuses to do when his "world view" schtick is falsified.

[Enki]

#21

There is no verifiable evidence to back it up therefore it's not truth. As it is not truth, there is no verifiable evidence to back it up.

Time and time again, you can be seen adopting the stance in the second sentence whilst acting as if evidence is a factor in your stance, as per the first sentence.

Therefore, your question is pointless.

Except Floo never said that 'it's not the truth', only that one cannot claim something to be true without verifiable evidence.

Therefore your response here seems rather pointless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems to me that Hillside has managed intentionally or not to massage minds into accepting  the equivalence of opposing beliefs to 2+2=5 and the implication that his beliefs are equivalent to 2+2=4.

There is form here of course when he previously started a thread called ''can we move on'' where he bid us accept that his version moral irrealism was the 2+2=4.

The answer here is to stop the hypnosis of the repetition of suggesting that his beliefs about ontology are in anyway equivalent to 2+2=4 whether intentional or not. Particularly when he takes pride in his answers being a meatily honest ''I don't know''. In his schema that actually isn't 2+2=4 but 2+2=? which disqualifies him from maths analogies anyway.

Enough of the lack of perspective already.

[Nearly Sane]

It seems to me that Hillside has managed intentionally or not to massage minds into accepting the equivalence of his beliefs to 2+2=4 and the equivalence of opposing beliefs to 2+2=5.

There is form here of course when he previously started a thread called ''can we move on'' where he bid us accept that his version moral irrealism was the 2+2=4.

The answer here is to stop the hypnosis of the repetition of suggesting that beliefs about ontology are in anyway equivalent to 2+2=4 whether intentional or not.

Enough of the lack of perspective already.

Except it isn't about beliefs on ontology but in the continued use of fallacies in argument. Arguments that are  fall. That's it. That's all bluehilkside has said. What you are doing is misrepresenting his statements. Why are you misrepresenting?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except it isn't about beliefs on ontology but in the continued use of fallacies in argument. Arguments that are  fall. That's it. That's all bluehilkside has said. What you are doing is misrepresenting his statements. Why are you misrepresenting?

How is using the term ''world view'' a fallacy equivalent to 2+2=5.

[Nearly Sane]

How is using the term ''world view'' a fallacy equivalent to 2+2=5.

Citation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Citation?

Replies Reply #33 and Reply #38

[Nearly Sane]

Replies Reply #33 and Reply #38

They don't say fallacy, they say falsification. These are different things.In this case it might be that you just read them too fast so got confused when you wrote out your post.

[floo]

How is using the term ''world view'' a fallacy equivalent to 2+2=5.

Just a suggestion Vlad, when you change your name again, as you do on a fairly frequent basis, how about 2+2=5?

[SusanDoris]

As do yours in spades!
We can never see ourselves as others see us.
At least Sword of the Spirit isn't nasty.

Interesting post!  I may be all sorts of things, but I think I can safely say nasty is not one of them!

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Some posts have been removed as being a derail

[Alien]

Grace exists that doesn't change but it won't save you if you have no faith in it's truth.
So it is saved by faith through grace. Because having faith alone cannot save you if grace not there for it to happen.

So you think the way it is written actually matters?

Speaks more about lack of knowing the content and seeing just the outside shell.

So much of how you think and others is showing how it falls short of the truth.

Ephesians 2:8-10 from the NIV for you, Sassy.

"8 For it is by grace (τῇ γὰρ χάριτί) you have been saved, through faith (διὰ πίστεως)--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

You wrote, "Because having faith alone cannot save you if grace not there for it to happen." It isn't possible for us to have that faith without God's grace enabling us to have that faith, so such a situation would not occur.